THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 247 



The fact that so many intelligent Entomologists have found themselves 

 impelled to put on record their dissent from statements and theories found 

 in this book, may, perhaps, be construed as a recognition of the high place 

 which Mr. Scudder has held and still occupies as a scientific writer. The 

 greater the authority borne by his words, the more earnest must be the 

 protest of those who believe that in certain respects his utterances are 

 misleading and mischievous. Reviewers in the New York Tribune, in the 

 Nation, and elsewhere, have found in this work many points which invite 

 trenchant criticism, in directions where the writer of this article does not 

 care to follow. There remains, however, a topic upon which something 

 should be said. We believe we shall be sustained by many of the fore- 

 most lepidopterists, when we express the opinion that this work is 

 grieviously marred by a nomenclature that is singularly unscientific and 

 confusing. If it shall appear that in^ the reproduction of this nomen- 

 clature, Mr. Scudder has acted not inadvertently, but in the face of positive 

 and conclusive facts, which have demolished the foundation and razed the 

 superstructure formerly constructed by him, then the terms by which we 

 have characterized this nomenclature are not as explicit and as severe as 

 they might well be made. 



After Mr. Scudder had proposed his wholesale deformation of the 

 nomenclature of American Butterflies, as pubUshed in his " Systematic 

 Revision," in the Fourth Annual Report of the Peabody Academy of 

 Sciences, we took occasion to review that Revision in the pages of the 

 Entomologist. In that paper we attempted to show that the differences 

 upon which, as criteria, Mr. Scudder had formed his new genera, even if, 

 for argument's sake, these differences were admitted to be real, were not 

 such as authorized the construction of new genera. As an example, 

 applying the test of accurate and just comparison which every scientific 

 discussion demands, we presented a tabulated statement of the characters 

 of several of the proposed genera, collated from the printed diagnoses of 

 these genera, and showing in parallel columns all the distinctions given. 

 By this means we sought to show, as it seemed evident to ourselves, that 

 the differences on which these genera were founded were both in fact and 

 in statement evanescent and delusive, and not such as science could or 

 should recognize as generic in their significance. We had prepared like 

 synoptic tables of others of the proposed genera, and had found the 

 innovations equally open to adverse criticism, but the specimen given 

 seemed sufficient evidence of the quality of the whole. In the west, at 



